为什么同步在以下代码中不起作用？

Question

这个代码有时抛出一个Exception,即使我在run方法块中使用了 synchronizedMethod ,我在一个上添加和删除元素.removeFirstsynchronizedsynchronizedList

public class NameDropper extends Thread {

    private NameList n1;

    public NameDropper(List list) {
        this.n1 = new NameList(list);
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        List l = Collections.synchronizedList(new LinkedList());
        NameDropper n = new NameDropper(l);
        n.n1.add("Ozymandias");
        Thread[] t = new NameDropper[10];
        for (int i = 1; i <= 10; i++) {
            t[i - 1] = new NameDropper(l);
            t[i - 1].setName("T" + Integer.toString(i - 1));
            t[i - 1].start();
        }
    }

    public void run() {
        synchronized (this) {
            try {
                Thread.sleep(50);
                String name = n1.removeFirst();
                System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ": "
                    + name);
            } catch (InterruptedException e) {
                // TODO Auto-generated catch block
                e.printStackTrace();
            }
        }
     }
}

class NameList {
    private List names = null;

    public NameList(List list) {
        this.names = list;
    }

    public synchronized void add(String name) {
        names.add(name);
    }

    public synchronized String removeFirst() {
        if (names.size() > 0)
            return (String) names.remove(0);
        else
            return null;
      }
}

它抛出的例外:

T1: Ozymandias    
T2: null    
*Exception in thread "T3" java.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException: Index: 0, Size: 0    
    at java.util.LinkedList.entry(Unknown Source)
    at java.util.LinkedList.remove(Unknown Source)
    at java.util.Collections$SynchronizedList.remove(Unknown Source)
    at NameList.removeFirst(NameDropper.java:57)*
T0: null    
T8: null    
*at NameDropper.run(NameDropper.java:33)*      
T6: null    
T4: null    
T9: null    
T7: null    
T5: null    

Answer 1

You're creating a new NameDropper instance for each thread.
Therefore, the synchronized methods aren't actually locking, since each instance is never used by two threads.